Evolution; Theory or Fact
First Prev
of 9
Next Last
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#162 Oct 24, 2012
Jochen Lutz wrote:
<quoted text>No, it doesn't have a different meaning. That's where all you junk scientists come in, instead of having your real facts, science today "assumes". I can assume that my chocolate cake is red, but that doesn't make it so. I take many things as correct from the debate, but we DON'T KNOW! We don't have a clear enough concrete answer yet. And until we do, I shall keep searching.
You're trapped in a dark box locked from the inside. You need to get over your agrophobia first.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#163 Oct 24, 2012
Jochen Lutz wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not a creationist. The scientific puzzle has not been filled in to my satisfaction & many other scientists.
YOUR personal satisfaction is irrelevant. Your baseless opinions are worth diddly. You are quite simply *not* that important.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#164 Oct 24, 2012
Jochen Lutz wrote:
<quoted text>Don't get mad b/c you can't say for sure that you know for a FACT you know what the hell you are talking about!I'm NOT a creationist. I go by irrefutable facts. And you don't have them. Simple.
Then I suggest you go back and re-read this thread. You will find that YOU are the one who avoids rebuttals, not the other way 'round.

You're not a creationist then? Who cares? All that means is that Bumble Bro has another nihilist to keep him company or we have another crank who can finally be Shadow's friend. He's had to invent some for himself so far.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#165 Oct 24, 2012
Jochen Lutz wrote:
<quoted text>So What? We have known this for awhile. The splitting of genomes doesn't make an explanation for evolution. In fact, when you screw with these animals and begin cloning, you come out with all kinds of problems. T%hat is no fact for evolution in humans.
He did NOT state their **genomes** split, he was saying their lineages showed the first signs of splitting, just like them ring species I told you about. Cloning isn't even relevant to any of this.

For someone who claims to know a whole lot about evolution we'd at least expect you to understand the correct terminology in the context it was used. As it is you're utterly clueless.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#166 Oct 24, 2012
Jochen Lutz wrote:
<quoted text>I am not a FUNDIE. Let's get that straight.
Still don't care. A reality denier is a reality denier is a reality denier. Ultimately the particulars of that person's opinions are not relevant. 99.9999999999999999999% of fundies tend to lie anyway, so we usually suspect them of being fundies anyway even when they say they aren't. And if you're a nihilist or crank instead, well, no biggie in the grand scheme of things.
Jochen Lutz wrote:
And I come here when I feel up to it? What the hell does that mean? I WORK for a living, moron.
Yeah, most of us do. But I said you'll get around to addressing our posts when you feel up to it. It's now nearly 6 months later.

Apparently you're still not feeling up to it.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#167 Oct 24, 2012
Jochen Lutz wrote:
<quoted text>I understand the subject completely. That's YOUR opinion. You know nothing about me or what I have studied. You can't say for a concrete fact; you just ASSUME!
You're right. You could really be a real scientist. You could know all about evolution and just been wasting time arguing against the caricature straw-man version of evolution instead just for lulz. I personally don't know what does it for you for jollies. Don't care either. But you can't blame me when my assumptions are based on the dumbosity you post.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#168 Oct 24, 2012
Jochen Lutz wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I am out of my element, b/c my element has facts. Your element is a bunch of sheep & nutz!
If you have facts you should have no problem presenting some then.

So when are you gonna start?(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#169 Oct 24, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
In addition, lets not overlooked that you failed to address the CONTENT of my post
Yeah, I noticed that too.

With pretty much everyone he responded to.

I wonder why that is?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#170 Oct 28, 2012
Jochen Lutz wrote:
<quoted text>I suppose you use Wikipedia as your scientific go to source, also. I see that a lot on here, and it's incredibly stupid!
Sorry, but FOX news isn't on my television, so I can't use your source.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#171 Oct 31, 2012
Jochen Lutz wrote:
<quoted text>LOLzzzz Wikipedia is your scientific source? LMAO!
Can you point to a specific Wiki page that's science based which contains errors?

I hear a lot of people blasting Wiki, but I've used the site a number of times and have always found the science pages to give a good overall general description of whatever topic is being discussed.

Now, if you are complaining that Wiki isn't getting the Paris Hilton information correct, then fine. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I don't know.

However, in regards to science and biology in particular, what is your specific complaint?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#172 Oct 31, 2012
It's an old saw that has been circulating around the Internet for years, coming originally from some college professors barring their students from using Wiki ALONE as citations in their term papers, etc.

It's been WAY overblown by the anti-intellectual fringe as "Wiki is unreliable!"

We see here on Topix that "Wiki is unreliable" when it refutes the claims of Christian creationists, etc.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Level 2

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#173 Oct 31, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you point to a specific Wiki page that's science based which contains errors?
I hear a lot of people blasting Wiki, but I've used the site a number of times and have always found the science pages to give a good overall general description of whatever topic is being discussed.
Now, if you are complaining that Wiki isn't getting the Paris Hilton information correct, then fine. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I don't know.
However, in regards to science and biology in particular, what is your specific complaint?
I, too, have found Wikipedia to be a great starting point for learning about a wide variety of subjects. The ability to edit subject to review actually strengthens it because errors don't tend to survive for long and experts with a little time on their hands often fill in details missing in earlier versions. But one does have to be careful if the information is of any practical consequence by checking references and corroborating it with other sources.

It is, after all, only a starting point.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#174 Oct 31, 2012
Gillette wrote:
It's an old saw that has been circulating around the Internet for years, coming originally from some college professors barring their students from using Wiki ALONE as citations in their term papers, etc.
It's been WAY overblown by the anti-intellectual fringe as "Wiki is unreliable!"
We see here on Topix that "Wiki is unreliable" when it refutes the claims of Christian creationists, etc.
I can understand why a college student would not be allowed to use it as a sole source, no one should really, but it's a great starting point.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Level 2

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#175 Oct 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I can understand why a college student would not be allowed to use it as a sole source, no one should really, but it's a great starting point.
Seems we think alike one this. I just commented on another thread on the human tendency to engage in all-or-nothing thinking and how it limits perspective. I think we're seeing it here--Wikipedia has to be either perfect or worthless, no middle ground. Doesn't make much sense, does it?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#176 Nov 1, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
Seems we think alike one this. I just commented on another thread on the human tendency to engage in all-or-nothing thinking and how it limits perspective. I think we're seeing it here--Wikipedia has to be either perfect or worthless, no middle ground. Doesn't make much sense, does it?
False dichotomies always bother me, especially when extreme ends are defined. Yeah, I concur with you on this. Almost nothing in all of existence is a dichotomy, much less an extreme one.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 min Eagle 12 28,567
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 34 min King Carrot 910
One species or three 1 hr pshun2404 276
Is the Peer Reviewed Journal argument sound? 1 hr pshun2404 49
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Aura Mytha 67,023
Stacking the Deck and Intellectual Integrity 3 hr pshun2404 22
Why isn't intelligent design really science? 3 hr pshun2404 58
What does the theory of evolution state? 3 hr pshun2404 163
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 5 hr Subduction Zone 224
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr MADRONE 160,916
More from around the web